User talk:CBFan/Archive 2
Welcome to Robot Wars Wiki! Welcome to our wiki, and thank you for your contributions! There's a lot to do around here, so I hope you'll stay with us and make many more improvements. :' ' is a great first stop, because you can see what other people are editing right this minute, and where you can help. :Please ', if you haven't already, and create a user name! It's free, and it'll help you keep track of all your edits. :'Questions? You can ask at the Help desk or on the associated with each article, or post a message on my talk page! :Need help? The Community Portal has an outline of the site, and pages to help you learn how to edit. I'm really happy to have you here, and look forward to working with you! :Christophee 13:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC) More than willing However, you must realise that making errors is human. If I make a mistake, please do not flame, just do what Christophee does and say General Corrections. I didn't think to check 13 Black, I just assumed because the section on Competitor Robots said 5-6. But that's not the point. I have figured out a way to prevent mistakes. Hope to continue working together in peace. Toon Ganondorf (t ' Wanted Articles From now on, if you see a robot with a red link, don't change it so its blue. The red link adds it to the Wanted Articles list, and makes it easy to find what robots need articles. Also, once its written, we don't need to edit the wars and link to the article. 'Toon Ganondorf (t ' It says in Bold On the policy, Bot-Hating does not cover anything on peoples pages or in forums. I have a right to say what I believe. SO do you. 'Toon Ganondorf (t ' :Yes, but it is not an acceptable reason for liking or disliking another robot. There is a reason I left the official Panic Attack forum. There has to be a reason why you dislike a robot, and it can NOT be because it beat one of your favourites. :Also, I removed the comment about Cerberus because it doesn't make sense. It DID return when the weight-limit went up. TWICE. CBFan 22:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC) ::I never said anything like that. And concerning Cerberus, I meant the main competition. I knew that it came back for Extremes, but thats not what I meant. 'Toon Ganondorf (t ' :::You did. The only reason you put for hating Rattus Rattus was that it beat S.M.I.D.S.Y., which is stupid because Atomic, who alo beat that robot, is in your top five. Granted, you changed it, but the point still stands. :::Oh, and I seriously don't like that section anyway, because everything you've said mkaes me want to say "YOU build a better robot then". CBFan 23:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC) ::::That's your problem. You assume. How do you know that I haven't? 'Toon Ganondorf (t ' :::::Well, unless you're one of the guys behind Terror Australis or Bondi-Titch...CBFan 08:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC) Heat Finalists I'm glad, so I'll make S.M.I.D.S.Y., The Steel Avenger, Kat 3, Diotoir and Robochicken. 'Toon Ganondorf (t ' ALso, we haven't finished the semi-finalists. You can have your choice at making any of the Seventh Wars finalists; I don't know much about them. I'll do RAging Knightmare and Gravity, along with Haardvark. Christophee says he'll do Mute, so you can pick any of the others. 'Toon Ganondorf (t ' :Those five will be fine, although actually there are a few more significant ones than Robochicken. I'll see what I can pull off for the others. I'd just like to stress now, please make sure you take into account what Christophee and I have done with your previous edits, and learn from your mistakes. Thank you. CBFan 22:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC) ::Significance should have nothing to do with it. I can list robots that went out in the first round who are more significant than, say, Blade or Trident, yet they have articles already. ::Regarding Robochicken, should it be called Robochicken or Robochicken Evo? 'Toon Ganondorf (t ' :::No you can't. If a robot went out in Round 1 of the UK wars, then it can never be significant to that competition. Besides, I have my own plans for the robots that fared better in the side-competitions. CBFan 08:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC) I must say, I don't remember saying I was going to create the article for Mute. I said I'd be happy to do the Series 7 robots and you suggested Mute, but I never said I was going to create it. I'm only mentioning this because I'm quite happy for someone else to create that page if they want to, but if nobody else does, I'll do it eventually. I think that the article should be called 'Robochicken' as Robochicken Evo only entered one series (using that name anyway) and lost in the first round, plus we might as well use a more general name. Christophee 00:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC) So, We're having finalists, successful robots, and other robots? That sounds good to me. 'Toon Ganondorf (t ' I understand your obsessive compulsive behaviour with having all the semi-finalists done first, but we're trying to attract more people here. The first new one comes along, and you delete their work. Why on earth would they stay? It really doesn't matter, in my opinion, because once the semi-finalists are done, Diotoir will merit its own article anyway. Quite frankly, what are you thinking? 'Toon Ganondorf (t ' :It's an IP, and that was their only piece of work. I could hardly contact them, explain my reasons for doing what I'd done, and apologise, which in all honesty, I would have done under the circumstances. :Besides, I'd really, for once, like for the articles to be their own thing, not a C'n'P of what they were on the Competitor robot page. CBFan 22:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC) ::Understandable. An might I add that I'm impressed with you lately. You are beginning to sound like a mature admin, and have hardly lost your temper in ages. Well done. 'Toon Ganondorf (t ' Successful robots I think we should make a new template to put the robots that aren't semi-finalists but still performed well. I think the name succesful robots is inappropriate, but robots that won extreme competitions or awards should be seperate from robots that didn't. While the one on your page is a good indicator, I must disagree with Raizer Blade. They were never that great, and they made a heat final because they sustained less damage and because Terror Bull broke down. I might compile a list of robots who I think should be on the template, and you let me know what you think. 'Toon Ganondorf (t ' :Raizer Blade competed in three wars, almost managed to overturn Hypno-Disc, and you're wrong...they only suffered in the Heat Final because of a seized up motor. You're just bot-worshipping again. A robot is not automatically bad just because it gets drawn against Hypno-Disc. By your logic, Bulldog Breed shouldn't have its own article. CBFan 09:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC) Its up. Tell me what you think. 'Toon Ganondorf (t ' :THere's a difference between almost and did. If it had competed in several wars, then yes, but it only appeared in two, losing in the second round against Suicidal Tendencies and in the heat final against Hypno-Disc. Just because Hypno-Disc is my favourite robot doesn't mean that I hate every robot its come up against. Raizer Blade did lose in the final after one blow from Hypno-Disc, because it had already sustained so much damage. That's fact, not Bot-Hatng. :Bulldog Breed has an article because its a semi finalist. I don't know why you even brought that up. 'Toon Ganondorf (t ' ::And yet, you're insistant that Rick gets an article? That does not work on SO many levels. You have to be consistant. If anything, Rick performed worse than Raizer Blade. More to the point, how a robot loses means nothing. Raizer Blade still got further than Chromalot. ::Oh, and get your facts right. Raizer Blade competed in THREE wars, not two. Obviously. CBFan 09:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC) :::Uh-huh. What other war was that? I've never heard that before. And I never said Rick deserves and article yet, I just made a redirect for Maverick. I'm not going to argue with you. I'm above that. 'Toon Ganondorf (t ''' ::::Yeah, that's the problem...you're saying Rick doesn't deserve an article '''yet, but you're saying that Raizer Blade doesn't deserve it at all. Do you really think that's fair? ::::Also, hello? Series 2? KillDozer? I rest my case. CBFan 09:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC) :::::You'll forgive me, I hope, but I've never heard of KillDozer and Raizer Blade being related. I never said that Raizer Blade never deserved an article, just not yet. Toon Ganondorf (t ' Raizer Blade Okay, now you are bot-worshipping. Every third or fourth robot on the list is "Raizer Blade is more deserving." It's not even that good. It ''almost lifted Hypno-Disc, but was immobilised in the first round. It got through against Terror Bull, granted, but losing one of its drive wheels in the process. Final battle, one blow from Hypno-Disc immobilised it. I'm not Bot-Hating, I don't mind Raizer Blade, but they're not fitting in this group. I've whittled it down some more. The group is based around veterans, well-known robots, award winners and robots that did well in side competitions.\ There may be more, but these are some to go off and start with. Deal? 'Toon Ganondorf (t ' :No we are NOT. YOU'RE Bot-Worshipping and you know it. Derek never won a single battle in it's life, it's insignificant, nobody CARES about it. It. Won. NOTHING. Significant. An award is not significant. I mean, I don't care if Psychosprout won the Most Original Entry, it's still not significant. Raizer Blade scored enough points, that's why it's getting an article. Derek has no points at all. Don't contradict yourself. :And besides, how is it "bot-worshipping" when you're purely using maths? I calculated the scores of all the Robots in Robot Wars history. It's not MY fault that Raizer Blade scored within the top 20 of all non-semi-finalists, and thus deserving of an article.CBFan 22:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC) ::At the moment, I think a robot that participated in at least three wars and made at least one heat final is significant enough for now. As long as it has enough content to make the page long enough is fine by me. Also, a strong performance in the Extreme or a World Series is good too. 'Toon Ganondorf (t ' :::All very well, but there's a problem with that....there were several significant robots from Series 6 and 7. CBFan 08:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC) It would depend on how well they did. If they made a heat final or did a significant act, then we would decide on it. We should discuss it first and decide. 'Toon Ganondorf (t ' :Well I would, but how can I when you keep reverting EVERY single suggestion I make on your page (not to mention correction, as I've told you quite clearly, it's MEGA Morg, not Mini Morg) purely because you won't drop an argument that happened a long time ago? CBFan 08:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC) ::Because you are removing things from my page. Tell me your thoughts and I'll add it to the list. Do not take it upon yourself. 'Toon Ganondorf (t ' :::OK then, I will. CBFan 08:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC) ::::Thank you. 'Toon Ganondorf (t ' :::::Oh, and by the way, I think the Morgue article should be called The Morgue, since it was the most succesul, the other two going out in the first and second round. 'Toon Ganondorf (t ' ::::::Another thing. Are Velocrippa and Mighty Mouse sharing or seperate? Likewise, do you think that Widow's Revenge should be a part of the Razer article? They were the spouses and girlfriends, they did only enter to annoy the Razer team, and it was a one off battle. Tell me your thoughts. 'Toon Ganondorf (t ' Point 1: No, actually, Mega Morg won the most battles out of any of the robots (it won 2, The Morgue and Mini Morg only won 1). Plus it's probably the most well known of the three. I think it should be Mega Morg. Point 2: Velocirippa and Mighty Mouse are part of the same team, but are completely different robots. Not only that, but they competed together. You might want to check that with Christophee, but I think you'll find that they go seperately because of this. It's simply not like, say, Mousetrap and Black & Blue, or 101 & Anarchy, who competed seperatly from each other. Also, Razer and Widow's Revenge had completely different teams. Enough said. CBFan 16:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC) A little note When you are correcting mistakes that people make on articles, could you please do it without making comments that could be seen as rude or insulting the person's intelligence. By all means, say why you're correcting it, but do it in a polite way without questioning the person that made the mistake. For example, when you corrected something on The Seventh Wars - Heat C, you said "Would you care to explain the gash?". Whether you meant it to or not, that comment makes it seem that you're questioning my intelligence, or at the very least it could be seen as confrontational. In these cases, the person likely just didn't notice something or made an honest mistake so there's no need to question the person like that, just correct it and state that you made a correction. You probably don't mean to be rude, but it could be interpreted that way, so it's best to just avoid it. Thank you. Christophee 01:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC) :Well, I wasn't intending to be rude...and in fairnessy, they did make a point of showing the gash. I never intend to be rude. It's more or less the way I am. CBFan 08:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC) ::Fair enough, I admit I made a mistake on that and I'll pay closer attention to the battles when I do future write-ups, but you could have easily just corrected it without questioning me about it. It would be more constructive to use the edit summary section to put a summary of what you actually edited, rather than making unnecessary comments about other people's contributions. Christophee 16:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC) :::OK. Sorry if it came out the wrong way. CBFan 17:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC) Iron Awe Non-official honours are important as well. We have Cassius listed as first robot to self right, Chaos 2 as the first to flip another robot out, Firestorm as most battles won and several others. I think it should remain. As for the Robot History, if you help me write them, I would be happy to put histories in other robots. But I am not going to permit you to delete it from one article just because others don't. 'Toon Ganondorf (t ' :It's not even an honour. Thereby, not relevant. CBFan 09:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC) ::Alright, that can be removed. You're probably right. 'Toon Ganondorf (t ' :::There is no point in protecting 259. I am I sysop too, so I can still edit it. That was just a waste of time. 'Toon Ganondorf (t ' ::::In that case, forget about 259 and create an article for another robot, like Disc-O-Inferno for example. That robot was not only about as destructive as 259, but it got further, AND won a competition. CBFan 09:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC) :::::How about, instead of telling me what to do, do something yourself. I chose to do 259, and I stick by it. I half to go to sleep, but in the morning, I shall wake up, and undelete your 259 if you choose to keep trying. As I recall, you made a huge deal about Raizer Blade having an article. Why don't you do them? 'Toon Ganondorf (t ' ::::::It IS morning, and you will do no such thing. And do you know why? Because it will get BOTH of us demoted...or worse, banned. You're refusing to accept your own rules. 259 is not significant. End of ruddy story. CBFan 09:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC) :::::::Moron. I live in Australia, and it is 8:55 PM. I am tired, two of my friends are in hospital, I have six twelve hour days in a row starting tomorrow, and our country is being destroyed by bushfires. Do not push me about a stupid petty arguement. I have had enough. Goodnight. 'Toon Ganondorf (t ' ::::::::Congratulations, you've made possibily the biggest mistake you could ever make. CBFan 09:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC) :::::::::I'm sorry. I am just stressed lately, for the reasons listed above. I didn't mean to be rude. 'Toon Ganondorf (t ' New articles Alright. I made the last four notables, as I'm sure you can see. I'm starting on Mega Morg, and I'd like to do Barber-Ous. That leaves Mighty Mouse and Raizer Blade. Do you want to do them? 'Toon Ganondorf (t ' :Yes, I did notice. OK, I'll see what I can do. CBFan 11:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC) Suggestion Just a little suggestion about the robot history sections. If you think a section needs improving or re-writing, by all means improve or re-write it, but could you please leave it until you're ready to do the necessary improvements. I don't think its necessary to completely remove the section just because it needs to be improved or corrected, and if you leave it there maybe somebody else will improve it instead (the wiki is a joint effort after all). I like the sections that you write, but there is no need to completely remove somebody else's write-up just because it needs a few improvements, and if it needs re-writing at least leave it there until you're ready to re-write it. Thank you. Christophee 17:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC) :I'll put this here, since it is following on from Christophee. Please stop removing content saying you will rewrite it later. Either leave it until you're ready or change it immediately. Secondly, I have every right to write what I did. You were being overly rude to Jimi09. For all we know, he could have dyslexia. I am happy to fix up his edits, and I warn you not to be so rude again. I do not like the manner in which you are treating others. Please stop it. Thank you. 'Toon Ganondorf (t ' 03:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC) :You did NOT have any right. I was clearly NOT being overly rude, I meerly offered some advice, which he didn't take. YOU'RE the one being rude by deliberately bashing me. You don't hear me going around telling people "Oh, don't listen to Toon Ganondorf, he's an obnoxious idiot who only wants to get his own way", do you? So show a little ruddy consideration. I have removed it, simply because you do NOT bash other members. :And BTW, no, I don't think that of you, believe it or not. CBFan 07:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC) ::As I see it, you two cannot come to an agreement. Whether you mean to or not, CBFan, you come off as insulting, hurtful and short-tempered. Writing in ALL CAPS comes off as yelling, intentionally or not. Telling someone that they should stop contributing just because they don't meet your standards is pathetic, shallow and selfish. Removing someone's advice to another user with an edit summary of "shut up" is definitely ban worthy. Toon Ganondorf, you continue to pick fights with this guy, even though he is clearly not worth the effort. You two, from what I see, have been at each others throats for months. Drop it immediately. '''GutripperSpeak 07:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC) :::You two are only hurting the wiki. GutripperSpeak 07:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC) ::::First of all, I have not being writing in all caps, I did not tell him not to contribute altogether, and TG had no right to deliberately bash me, yet he did. And don't say I'm "not worth it". TG and I are clearly both Mods. ::::I'd write more, but you deleted my first comment. CBFan 07:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC) :::::I am not an idiot, so do not lie to me. You appear to be clinging at straws. TG did not bash you. You told him not to contribute by writing (how else can he? not pictures). In the three minutes it took you to reply, I found three pages where you have written a word in all caps. I may regret saying this, but I am shocked that the two of you were promoted. GutripperSpeak 07:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC) ::::::Neither am I, so don't lie to me either. TG did bash me. He told Jimi not to listen to me. One word does not make it shouting, and besides, I wasn't sounding, I was meerly emphasizing the word, obviously. And yes, he can contribute with pictures (I mean, he's found some pretty good ones before). CBFan 07:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC) :::::::Not intentionally I'm sure. I think he meant for Jimi not to listen to you as in not to take offense. I have had enough of talking about this. If either of you snaps at the other, or if I read "shut up" one more time, I will report you to the wikia staff and request that they demote and ban both of you. You are acting like a pair of children. GutripperSpeak 07:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC) Agreement You are being very stubborn. You have said yourself many times that this is a team effort. Just because you say a spelling is how it should be, does not mean that that is how we shall spell it. I put off creating Sump Thing's article for a long time on purpose; i wanted to reach an agreement on its name. You have just gone and created the article in your spelling without consulting any of the other users. And, yes, CHristophee and i did come to an agreement. Please stop doing things just because you view it in such a way. And do not even think about getting angry at me...you and I are on our last lifelines. Prove that you are worthy of being an admin by not having bitter revert wars and ALL CAPS remarks. Toon Ganondorf (t ' 23:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC) :Christophee clearly states that he wasn't fussed either way, so you obviously didn't come to an agreement to call it "Sump Thing". And it's not my choice, I am literally going on all the Robot Wars info I have, and well over half of those have it spelt "Sumpthing". Thereby, I felt it would be more logical to spell it that way. I don't need to reach any agreement over something as silly as a name. You're the only one making a big fuss about it. It's no different from the article being "The Grim Reaper" and not "Grim Reaper". Please stop doing things because you view it in such a way. And please stop telling lies about me...not everything I have done has been a revert war, and I have NEVER made "All Caps" remarks. CBFan 06:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC) If not they When I say they I am referring to the team controlling the robot as the team are a group of people therefore they, as the team are what controls the robot it made sense to me to say for example 'They drove on to a grill'. It doesn't make sense to say 'It drove on to a grill'. All the Robot Wars user guides follow that principle but if you want me to refer to the robot and the team as 'it' and the rest of the admin agree with you then fine I'll bear it in mind in future.CaptainAlex 21:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC) Ok fair enough mate if that's the rule and Wheelosaurus was clearly a mistake obviously I momentarily forgot there was only one member in the team.CaptainAlex 21:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC) Whats not true? What wasn't true about Destruct-a-bubble?, i got all the information from the Robot Wars series 4 Guide, just because some things may have changed in Series 5. Considering that it was still a 1m Truncated Sphere. Llamaman201 10:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC) :Yeah, that's part of the problem. The stats are to be for the most up-to-date appearance for that machine. Granted, I don't know Destruct-A-Bubble's most up-to-date stats, but I DO know that it wasn't under 80 kilos, nor did it have a lance anymore. In these instances, fill it in with what IS known. CBFan 11:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC) Taking a break. Meh, I'm thinking about taking a small break from the wikia. I've been getting a little stressed recently and it isn't helping. I'll be back soon, hopefully in a better frame of mind. CBFan 06:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC) Admin status I know this page is protected, but I really need to say this to you. I have had several complaints about your behaviour over the last two days, and I must say I agree with most of the complaints against you. We cannot have admins on this wiki who alienate the new users by deleting their articles and then refusing to respond to their questions on the community portal and deleting the questions they ask. Every member of the wiki is just as important as you are and it is our job to make them feel welcome and help them contribute to the wiki, not to drive them away. You are clearly abusing your powers as an administrator and I feel you have had enough warnings about your behaviour in the past. As a result, I have decided that it would be best for the wiki if you were stripped of your admin powers immediately. I'd like to thank you for the contributions you have made to this wiki, particularly as you helped me to get it up and running in the early days. I hope you know that there are no hard feelings, but I have made this decision for the good of the wiki. I hope you understand my decision and continue to contribute constructively to the wiki in the future. Christophee 00:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC) :Christophee, I'm really sorry, OK? I've been a bit stressed lately, and I do actually realise I haven't been that patient or anything. That's why I decided to take that break from the wikia so I could have a calm down period and get back to my normal state of well-being. The only reason I protected my page (and make sure SpinningSpark knows this) is because I didn't want IP vandals doing anything in it. :I'm sorry, Christophee. If you don't want me around, then I understand. I'll just leave. :Thanks for having me over and help you, and I hope for all the best of this Wikia. Goodbye everyone. CBFan 07:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC) ::You could've trusted us to look after your page, just because we clash doesn't mean we'd condone vandalism. ::You don't have to leave. Now that you are the same status as the rest of us, there is much less chance of friction. You are a vital part of the community. Please don't leave. 'GutripperSpeak 07:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC) :::No Gutripper, it's for the best. Even if I'm not an admin anymore, it's not going to help matters, especially considering the history with Toon Ganondorf...you know full well he hates me. If I stayed, it just wouldn't work. CBFan 13:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC) Goodbye forever I'm obviously causing too much friction here, so I'm leaving for good. Good luck to everyone in the near future, and I hope the Wiki turns out the way you want it to. Goodbye, everybody. CBFan 07:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC) :You're quite welcome to stay and continue to help out, and as Gutripper said, without your admin powers there would be a smaller chance of the conflicts that we have had in the past. But if you really want to leave then I respect your decision. Thank you very much for everything you have done for the wiki. My deepest regards. Christophee (talk) 23:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC) ::Look, I'd love to stay, but there's a problem.....Toon Ganondorf. You know full well he hates me. ::In fact, now, because of him, I've HAD to come back. CBFan 10:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC) I don't know if you'll read this but... I've finished your request for a battle of the robots who broke down. Like I said, I don't know if you'll continue to read your talk page and stuff, but if you do, check it out on my channel. 'RA2; aka Resetti's Replicas 18:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC) :::Yes. I don't hate you, otherwise I wouldn't have unblocked you. IP adresses are unreliable, it means that we can't track your edits. I did this because any IP could claim to be you, and I dont want to waste time figuring it out. 'Toon Ganondorf (t ' 10:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC) ::::Yeah, but on 'tuther hand, I didn't really want to be a part of somewhere where I was going to be more of a hinderance than a help. CBFan 10:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Then don't. We need you, but you can leave if you wish. What I did prevents any other IP addresses saying that they are you. We encourage IP's to make permenant accounts, not the other way around. 'Toon Ganondorf (t ' 10:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Look I thought, and really hoped, that you'd stopped. I got back from my holiday and I find that you've blanked three pages; Loco, Technophobic and Demolition Demon, for no reason other than that they are not finished. Please stop this behavior. 'Toon Ganondorf (t ' 08:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC) :Very well. 'Toon Ganondorf (t ' 21:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC) :Well if they aren't true, you have nothing to worry about. Besides, an explanation underneath an accusation would suffice, but the behaviour you are displaying comes off as desperate. Also, would you mind linking your signiature to your talk page? It makes it easier to reply to your messages. The instructions are found on Christophee's talk page. 'Toon Ganondorf (t ' 21:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC) Absence from All-Stars A comment from Marlon Pritchard on Youtube stated that X-Terminator and Bulldog Breed were badly damaged after their respective losses in Series 7. I just guessed about Spawn Again, but I can't think of a reason as to why they weren't eligible. 'Toon Ganondorf (t ' 11:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC) That could well be it, but we can't include it on a guess, not matter how accurate. I've noted that is likely that they didn't participate, which should be fine. You can add the reason though, if you want. 'Toon Ganondorf (t ' 11:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC) I've had enough If you continue to treat us like idiots, I will block you. I'm fed up about reading "Since when was such-and-such a clusterbot?" You know full well that people write "they" while referring to the team driving the robot. If I read another tantrum from you about someone not being a clusterbot, you shall be blocked. Correct things graciously please. 'Toon Ganondorf (t ' 10:07, 2 May 2009 (UTC) :Yes, but the guidelines, and I know they're not 100% official, clearly state that, when refering to the robots, to use "It" rather than "They". I mean, it's not the teams that are doing the fighting, is it? Are you seeing David Gribble punching Ian Lewis in the face? No, you are seeing Pussycat tearing Razer's wheel off. There is a difference. :I am not treating people like idiots, it is not my fault that they don't read the "rules". And I am clearly not throwing a tantrum, and you PROMISED you wouldn't tell lies about me again. Be more gracious yourself, and stop using immature language, and maybe I'd be more willing to listen to you, and work with you. As it stands, I'm finding it VERY difficult to tolerate your behaviour towards me. I'm trying to work by the guidelines here. They've been established for a while now. :But every single time, you're insistant on having a go at me, and automatically trying to block me. Has it not occured to you that, maybe, if you acted a little nicer, I would as well? I'm just a little stressed, that's all. CBFan 13:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC) ::I have not made any aggressive comments towards you in a long time. If I believe that a user is disrupting the wiki, I have every right as an admin to warn them about receiving a ban. If I was being over the top, I would have blocked you without a warning. However, I have given you a warning so that you may improve your behaviour. ::And do not DARE talk to me about stress. Try an hour in my life and you will think anything you have is a breeze. 'Toon Ganondorf (t ''' 14:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC) :::Well, in that case then, please stop saying that I am throwing tantrums, and try to put it down in a more respectful way, like Christophee has written below. And trust me, I'm under a lot of stress right now, so don't try to shoot it back at me. CBFan 15:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC) :::It is true that the guidelines say that robots should be referred to as 'it' rather than 'they', but I agree with TG that you do not need to make silly comments about the robots not being clusterbots, just politely say that you're changing it in accordance with the guidelines and users should get the message. Christophee (talk) 23:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC) OK, seriously, I've had enough.... ...leaving yet AGAIN because I can't cope anymore. I'm under too much stress, and things here (including Toon Ganondorf's hostility) are not helping me. At all. I'm taking a break, and I really can't say whether I'll be back or not...but if I'm not, then good luck. CBFan 13:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)